This text by an accomplished Pentecostal scholar provides the reader with an accessible and up-to-date treatment of Jesus’ miracles that is sufficiently apprised of the primary and secondary literature to keep advanced students and specialists interested. Moreover, Warrington provides an enjoyable read, and those familiar with his Pentecostal Theology will not likely be disappointed by his prose or content [Editor’s note: Read the full chapter “The Quest for a Pentecostal Theology” from Pentecostal Theology: A Theology of Encounter (2008)].

Keith Warrington

“Historical Context” (chapter 2) examines suffering, miracles, then Greco-Roman healing data, Jewish exorcism, and more. Modern psychologizing of exorcisms is incorrect: Jesus speaks to demons not victims. John ostensibly did not see exorcisms as necessary to his purpose, recording none. The Synoptics “point to Jesus’ authority and apparently do not provide “guidelines for exorcistic practice.” Thus, Warrington consistently moves away from much scholarship that sees the miracles as models for the church. Warrington also detaches from the legacy of form criticism that carried over to redaction criticism and beyond which finds the Sitz im Leben of the Gospels the surest guide to understanding their compositional intention: the miracle stories primarily and saliently apprise of Jesus, not the Church (but, e.g., note his sensitivity to initial audiences on p. 209). Modern scholars debate the definition of miracle, which Warrington says is “a supernatural action that transforms a previous dire and humanly insoluble situation …” Consistent with today’s miracle scholarship, Warrington notes that the Gospel writers do not hold that “God has broken his own laws; rather, he has achieved what is his right to do.” Warrington concludes that miracle reports are rare outside the Gospels, briefly mentioning Onias (Ḥoni the Circle Drawer) and Ḥanina ben Dosa regarding miracles and especially Asclepius for Greco-Roman healings. Quick attention is drawn the Old Testament’s “limited” appreciation of physicians as compared to Sirach 38’s positive view, which presents, says Warrington, a bleaker understanding of this role, as does the Mishnah regarding demon-possession in the Gospels. Warrington also recognizes the honor-shame culture of Luke’s time, noting that the synagogue ruler was rebuked by Jesus and became ashamed: not because he was remorseful but because he was dishonored in the eyes of the people, which jeopardized his status.

Employing a narrative-theological approach to understand the Gospels, Pennington uses lively prose but maintains a rigorous scholarship governed by a great respect for Scripture. Pennington writes in the same historical and theological hues of Martin Hengel and Richard Bauckham, following the latter’s argument for apostolic eye-witness testimony closely. Eminently practical, Pennington writes so that “readers will be invited into the joy of studying the Gospels more deeply and more often” (258) and to lead readers to respond to the Gospel’s message of faith in Jesus Christ.

Pennington reconnects the church and the academy, erasing the disjuncture between Scripture and the people. Preaching and teaching the Gospels is not some addendum tacked onto Pennington’s hermeneutical project: “I take guidance and courage here from the model of Augustine, whose one-thousand-year best-selling textbook on hermeneutics has for its final climactic section, a lengthy discussion of how to preach” (219). For Pennington, the Gospels are Holy Scripture: a meal to be eaten and not an FDA report on the organic components of a foodstuff. Contra form-criticism, we should not be concerned with the Sitz im Leben [German, “sit in life,” life-setting] of a text but its Sitz im unserem Leben, that is, “our life-setting” (156).

The book breaks up into three sections: “Clearing the Ground, Digging Deep, and Laying a Good Foundation” (chaps. 1–8), “Building the House through Wise Reading” (chaps. 9–10), and “Living in the Gospels House” (chaps. 11–1). Pennington first traces the development of the word “gospel,” which initially referred to the kerygma [Greek proclamation], but then the notion of written document was added to it. Pennington roots the gospel message in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah 40–66, which points Gospels study in the right direction. Chaps. 1–2 do a good job of defining the Gospels and forging the relationship between genre and hermeneutics. Gospels are broadly subsumed under the Greek category of bioi [Greek “lives,” biographies] (22). Pennington follows Richard Burridge, who has established the Gospels as Graeco-Roman bioi. Yet bios is a flexible genre and will inevitably share characteristics with “moral philosophy, encomia … and historical works” (23).

Jonathan Pennington

Going beyond Burridge, Pennington opts for “bios plus” (25). He follows Loveday Alexander, who points out that the Old Testament is “much more deeply prone to ‘bio-structuring’ than is classical Greek” (26). Alexander says that it is the biblical tradition that provides the Gospel narratives their “rich ideological intertextuality with the biblical themes of covenant, kingdom, prophecy, and promise—all features hard to parallel in Greek biography” (26). Pennington then borrows from Adela Yarbro Collins, who also critiques Burridge but adds the categories of apocalyptic and eschatology to Gospel bioi (26). Pennington agrees with Collins’ labeling Mark an “eschatological historical monograph” (27). But he emphatically notes that the Gospels are even more. They do not—as Greek bioi—merely tell of a dead figure with emulation in mind but proclaim the resurrected Jesus who is present for the readers. “This is good news, not just a biography!” (31).